Extra equipment was needed on the ground to pump up the signal.

You too can broadcast your skydive via Google Glass, so long as your friend will wait on the ground and point an amplifying dish at you. Google had its stuntmen perform a second dive at the second keynote of Google I/O on Thursday and revealed a bit more of how they pulled off the livestream.

When Google's team leapt out of a blimp yesterday, the entire jump was broadcast via a Google+ Hangout using Google Glass. However, the signal from a Google Glass device, falling at terminal velocity, isn't strong enough to maintain a video stream. Google supplemented the devices by having men on the ground who were pointing dishes at the divers to ramp up the signal.

As the parachutes opened during Thursday's dive, Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who was narrating from the ground, noted that one of the chutes released an apparent puff of smoke. This was to identify which of the two divers—both of whom donned Google Glass—the two dish-holders needed to point at to maintain the connection.

However, the signal from a Google Glass device, falling at terminal velocity, isn't strong enough to maintain a video stream.

I'm kinda thinking that the speed of the glasses is completely irrelevant in this statement. Whether they were moving at about 200 km/h (round about figure for terminal velocity of a skydiver), 0 km/hr, or 1000 km/h would not affect the signal strength. It's all about the distance and power.

I'm kinda thinking that the speed of the glasses is completely irrelevant in this statement. Whether they were moving at about 200 km/h (round about figure for terminal velocity of a skydiver), 0 km/hr, or 1000 km/h would not affect the signal strength. It's all about the distance and power.

It could break the communication entirely due to doppler effects I guess, but yeah, antenna gain won't help with that (much, anyway).

However, the signal from a Google Glass device, falling at terminal velocity, isn't strong enough to maintain a video stream.

I'm kinda thinking that the speed of the glasses is completely irrelevant in this statement. Whether they were moving at about 200 km/h (round about figure for terminal velocity of a skydiver), 0 km/hr, or 1000 km/h would not affect the signal strength. It's all about the distance and power.

I hope so. :-P If it was a speed issue instead of distance, it would have a much larger impact on potential applications.

I was a bit disappointed at this stunt. I was expecting aug. reality type stuff...like the glasses would produce a HUD that would help them target their flying buddies, show a name over the target, so they knew who it was, give them a NSWE compass to show their heading, and maybe logging how far until they reach their destination or the ground. Instead, it was just streaming video.

I was a bit disappointed at this stunt. I was expecting aug. reality type stuff...like the glasses would produce a HUD that would help them target their flying buddies, show a name over the target, so they knew who it was, give them a NSWE compass to show their heading, and maybe logging how far until they reach their destination or the ground. Instead, it was just streaming video.

I was a bit disappointed at this stunt. I was expecting aug. reality type stuff...like the glasses would produce a HUD that would help them target their flying buddies, show a name over the target, so they knew who it was, give them a NSWE compass to show their heading, and maybe logging how far until they reach their destination or the ground. Instead, it was just streaming video.

I was a bit disappointed at this stunt. I was expecting aug. reality type stuff...like the glasses would produce a HUD that would help them target their flying buddies, show a name over the target, so they knew who it was, give them a NSWE compass to show their heading, and maybe logging how far until they reach their destination or the ground. Instead, it was just streaming video.

Before you can run, you have to walk.

Maybe resolved by 2014.

That would be neat. Show the original jump(s), then show a live jump with all the OMGnew features.

I was a bit disappointed at this stunt. I was expecting aug. reality type stuff...like the glasses would produce a HUD that would help them target their flying buddies, show a name over the target, so they knew who it was, give them a NSWE compass to show their heading, and maybe logging how far until they reach their destination or the ground. Instead, it was just streaming video.

The problem is that you can't really show off a HUD unless you have people use the glasses themselves.

I was a bit disappointed at this stunt. I was expecting aug. reality type stuff...like the glasses would produce a HUD that would help them target their flying buddies, show a name over the target, so they knew who it was, give them a NSWE compass to show their heading, and maybe logging how far until they reach their destination or the ground. Instead, it was just streaming video.

I, too, was disappointed.

This device (thus far) appears to exclusively function as simply a recording device for those who feel the sort of deep sense of self importance it would take to feel the need to video record everything they do from their own POV. I'll feel interested when it actually starts actually outputting something useful directly to me rather than functioning as a $1500 wearable wireless video camera/microphone.

And before you ask, yes — most things I do involve signaling with puffs of smoke.

Sounds like you accidently admitted to being a ninja.

Or a Native American in times past, ancient Chinese manning the Great Wall of China, or a Boy Scout.

Or a Taco Bell addict.

jackstrop wrote:

This device (thus far) appears to exclusively function as simply a recording device...

No, it has a HUD, it's just kind of hard to fit ANOTHER tiny camera between the glasses and the wearer's eye... at terminal velocity.

Then the device should have been designed to broadcast what the wearer actually sees (capturing the framebuffer shouldn't have been difficult) instead of making it seem like a mountain dew addict's demo of a personal POV camera.

So, not actually a demonstration of what Google Glasses can do. I could talk on my tin can intercom while skydiving if I had compatriots on the ground reeling in my string to keep it under tension. A deceptive stunt at best for a product we don't seem to need. I loved it when another site described the projected image as "just above the field of view". You mean, where you can't see it?

This device (thus far) appears to exclusively function as simply a recording device for those who feel the sort of deep sense of self importance it would take to feel the need to video record everything they do from their own POV. I'll feel interested when it actually starts actually outputting something useful directly to me rather than functioning as a $1500 wearable wireless video camera/microphone.

I dub it Vidder! or FaceVid! Basically the same thing as Twitter or Facebook, just with video.

This device (thus far) appears to exclusively function as simply a recording device...

No, it has a HUD, it's just kind of hard to fit ANOTHER tiny camera between the glasses and the wearer's eye... at terminal velocity.

Then the device should have been designed to broadcast what the wearer actually sees (capturing the framebuffer shouldn't have been difficult) instead of making it seem like a mountain dew addict's demo of a personal POV camera.

You seem to be misunderstanding how this works, it doesn't display what is in your field of view along with additional content, it just displays additional content with some degree of transparency. They might have been able to show more or less what the jumpers were seeing, but it would be synthetic and people would be complaining about THAT.

Basically they pulled what looks like a decently successful publicity stunt based on some secondary capabilities of the device. I don't think it's practical to demonstrate the capabilities of a new type of display device on another display device, the real demonstration will have to happen in person, and regardless it's probably going to be a looooong time before these come down in price to the point where most of us will seriously consider buying one.

You seem to be misunderstanding how this works, it doesn't display what is in your field of view along with additional content, it just displays additional content with some degree of transparency. They might have been able to show more or less what the jumpers were seeing, but it would be synthetic and people would be complaining about THAT.

They should have overlaid whatever the HUD would show. As they performed it the demonstration just came off as an X-games advert.

They should have overlaid whatever the HUD would show. As they performed it the demonstration just came off as an X-games advert.

The people who it was aimed at understood what was going on, and that's all that matters at this point. Most people will need to try one in real life before they actually start to comprehend what it means and what it can do. Before all that, they needed to get them into the hands of developers, which is what this stunt kicked off. It's also pretty damn impressive that a camera, computer, and transmitter in some glasses frames was able to stream video that well, we haven't really seen anything like that before. It's one of those things that most people would probably tell you was possible, but actual hardware hasn't been around.

It's an 802.11n 2x2 MIMO unit with up to 27dBm TX power an RX sensitivity of -96dBm.

cdclndc wrote:

Quote:

However, the signal from a Google Glass device, falling at terminal velocity, isn't strong enough to maintain a video stream.

I'm kinda thinking that the speed of the glasses is completely irrelevant in this statement. Whether they were moving at about 200 km/h (round about figure for terminal velocity of a skydiver), 0 km/hr, or 1000 km/h would not affect the signal strength. It's all about the distance and power.

The motion doesn't effect the *strength* of the signal; but it does impact the modulation and throughput quite a bit. 802.11 isn't designed to deal with motion, and in my experience moving above about 20-30kph significantly impacts the data throughput you can achieve - at least with 2.4Ghz OFDM (802.11g) and DSSS; I can't say I've tried with 802.11n or with 5GHz.

I'm actually quite surprised an 802.11 link worked at all if they were moving at 200kph.

I don't think it's practical to demonstrate the capabilities of a new type of display device on another display device, the real demonstration will have to happen in person,

Agreed. While I was initially disappointed they didn't show anything more practical than POV video (imagine what the amateur pornographers will do when they get a hold of this ) between what they spoke about during the presentation and the newness I came away expecting that they'll get a good HUD sorted.

/quote]and regardless it's probably going to be a looooong time before these come down in price to the point where most of us will seriously consider buying one.[/quote]I don't know, looking at what it is I'd be seriously surprised if material costs were higher than $500. The oft-bespoken R&D will be high, but at mass production scale (especially since R&D is able to be recouped over the lifetime of a line of products) R&D costs trend toward 0.

I expect the real reason for the $1500 price tag is similar to the reason to limit orders to US attendees of I/O: limiting the base of people buying them. It won't stop all the tech rags from picking one up and (likely) tearing it apart with complaints, but the average developer won't pick it up at that price point. That will leave the well-off (financially) and truly interested developers who will buy them, and those people are the ones who will be most likely to put up with the flaws of a seriously alpha-product AND come up with innovative ideas of what to do with them.

I expect if they release to consumers in summer of 2014 to have a price tag right around $500. Though it would be completely awesome if they managed to have a version that insurance companies would cover intended for those of us who need corrective lenses. I would totally pay the cost of the electronics to have the "glasses" part of the device be covered by insurance.

I suspect that at least one of the skydivers was also wearing some sort of wifi repeater. I noticed that just prior to the dive, one of the divers unplugged something that had been wired over his shoulder and into his suit (maybe a battery pack, to keep his repeater charged up?). So in this way they were not dependent on the (probably weak?) wifi signals from the Google glasses alone. As long as the skydivers remained near one another, the signal path would then have been: glasses <--> skydiver-mounted wifi repeater <--> ground station via manually-aimed dish.

I loved it when another site described the projected image as "just above the field of view". You mean, where you can't see it?

The idea is that you look up when you need to check something. It's not a hud overlaying information over everything. Get a message, look up, as opposed to constant data overlay. Whether or not you think that's a better design up to you, but it's a bit like looking at an SUV and saying "what, no spoiler?".

It's not DESIGNED to be in your view all the time, because in order to do that reliably, you'll need a camera looking at the eyeballs to see what angle they're at, otherwise, you're overlaying data at the angle the head is, not where the person is actually looking at. So they designed it entirely differently, to work in an entirely different way. So it's not an error of ineptitude so much as a design decision.

It's a much COOLER idea to have a full overlay, obviously, but for now, this is what they decided was possible.

Also, so...shooting signals at people directly seems...odd. I still remember someone getting cas-evac'd from a base because he parked his 7-ton right in front of one of our microwave dishes. Not something I'd volunteer for.

I suspect that at least one of the skydivers was also wearing some sort of wifi repeater.

Boberz wrote:

... in my experience moving above about 20-30kph significantly impacts the data throughput you can achieve - at least with 2.4Ghz OFDM (802.11g) and DSSS; I can't say I've tried with 802.11n or with 5GHz.

My friend at Google informs me the glasses were plugged in via USB to Macbooks strapped to the skydivers' backs, which were then relaying the video feed via 5GHz 802.11n down to the dishes on the ground.

My friend at Google informs me the glasses were plugged in via USB to Macbooks strapped to the skydivers' backs, which were then relaying the video feed via 5GHz 802.11n down to the dishes on the ground.

However, the signal from a Google Glass device, falling at terminal velocity, isn't strong enough to maintain a video stream.

I'm kinda thinking that the speed of the glasses is completely irrelevant in this statement. Whether they were moving at about 200 km/h (round about figure for terminal velocity of a skydiver), 0 km/hr, or 1000 km/h would not affect the signal strength. It's all about the distance and power.

Speed affects signal quality due to doppler shift. By how much it is affected depends on the wavelength.

However, the signal from a Google Glass device, falling at terminal velocity, isn't strong enough to maintain a video stream.

I'm kinda thinking that the speed of the glasses is completely irrelevant in this statement. Whether they were moving at about 200 km/h (round about figure for terminal velocity of a skydiver), 0 km/hr, or 1000 km/h would not affect the signal strength. It's all about the distance and power.

Speed affects signal quality due to doppler shift. By how much it is affected depends on the wavelength.

My original quote was a bit tongue in cheek. I have a bit of a background in communication equipment and RF theory. Not saying I'm an expert in the field, but that I've worked there. It would seem to me, and I'm too lazy at the moment to do the math, that the terrestrial speeds I threw out above would have almost no impact on reception due to doppler shift. 200km/h or 0km/h would be almost indistinguishable given that RF propagates at the speed of light (slightly slower through the aptmosphere). I've never seen the case where two fighter jets, going balls out on opposing or converging courses, had to adjust their radios to compensate for doppler shift. Now that I think about it, even really tight band pass filters, which I installed in military aircraft, were unaffected by terrestrial speeds

Boberz above made an interesting point about the 802.11 protocol and motion but I've not ever researched that. I do know however that in cryptographic communication equipment I worked with, which utilized a digital format other than 802.11, was unaffected by a wide range of speeds. I suppose the new equipment that utilizes beam forming might be affected, but that aspect would be negated by the fact that Google was using parabolic directional antennas.

I was a bit disappointed at this stunt. I was expecting aug. reality type stuff...like the glasses would produce a HUD that would help them target their flying buddies, show a name over the target, so they knew who it was, give them a NSWE compass to show their heading, and maybe logging how far until they reach their destination or the ground. Instead, it was just streaming video.

I, too, was disappointed.

This device (thus far) appears to exclusively function as simply a recording device for those who feel the sort of deep sense of self importance it would take to feel the need to video record everything they do from their own POV. I'll feel interested when it actually starts actually outputting something useful directly to me rather than functioning as a $1500 wearable wireless video camera/microphone.

Oh man... I would get a sinking feeling if these glasses started a Twitter-like rage where people would just film themselves going about their normal lives, streaming it to the web, and letting others voyeur in on it all day long.

Some folks may be really interesting to follow, but ... good lord, I can't stand Twitter as it is. A streaming vid version of it would be such a waste.

BUT, much like idiots used to leave their web-cam on, so folks could look into their exciting lives of sitting on the computer and seeing what they're doing, I'm sure someoe will use the glasses liek that. What a waste.